Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the patients' hemodynamics during off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCABG) surgery. METHODS: Continuous monitoring of the mean systemic arterial pressure (SAP), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO(2)) and cardiac output index (COI) was done on 55 patients undergoing complete OPCAB revascularization. Hemodynamic changes were recorded at the completion of the anastomosis before releasing coronary snaring and stabilization and compared to baseline. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 66.4+/-9.2 years, and on average 3.3+/-0.8 grafts per patient were performed. The average SAP drop after manipulations was -8.3+/-16.9 mmHg for the left anterior descending artery (LAD), -13.5+/-19.6 mmHg for the diagonal artery (DG), -14.6+/-13 mmHg for the optuse marginal artery (OM), and -14.2+/-13.5 mmHg for the right coronary artery. This was significant for all territories (P<0.01). The PAP significantly increased in all territories except OM (LAD: 3.7+/-6.3 mmHg, DG: 4.3+/-8.6 mmHg, OM: 1.1+/-7.2 mmHg, posterior descending artery: 2.7+/-5.6 mmHg; P<0.05). Variations in COI were significant in all territories (P<0.01) but more significantly in LAD and DG territories (-15+/-3% and -13+/-9%, respectively). The SvO(2) variations were <10% for all territories and reached only borderline significance (P=0.05) in all territories except OM. All these hemodynamic changes were well tolerated by all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Manipulation of the beating heart during OPCABG surgery brings significant fluctuations in the patients' hemodynamics. Mean PAP increase and COI drop were more significant during manipulation of the anterior territories suggesting a more severe diastolic restrictive disease during anterior wall manipulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".